Doesn't admission of theft void your copyright ownership?
No. Because he forced ccowley to sign a non-disclosure agreement about the theft, i.e. Guesser could be lying. And ccowley couldn't confirm it either way.
when i see i crime, the police don't help me solve it when i call them.
You as a third party, observing the crime in one way or another, let the police know about a crime. They go do something about it according to the guidelines of their work.
Does the police monitor the internet, or a third party?
No. Because he forced ccowley to sign a non-disclosure agreement about the theft, i.e. Guesser could be lying. And ccowley couldn't confirm it either way.
Yes. My (fictional) lawyers have advised me not to comment any further on this matter.
No - but if a bailiff comes to your house with the police, the police are only there to keep the peace and not take sides.
the baliffs aren't there to sieze stolen goods.
if you had stolen something from a shop and had it in your house, the police would search your house, they wouldn't stand outside while a guy from hmv routed round your draws.
No. Because he forced ccowley to sign a non-disclosure agreement about the theft, i.e. Guesser could be lying. And ccowley couldn't confirm it either way.
But the fact that he forced ccowley to sign a non-disclosure agreement about the theft and that is also public knowledge will also void Guessers copyright ownership...
But the fact that he forced ccowley to sign a non-disclosure agreement about the theft and that is also public knowledge will also void Guessers copyright ownership...
Look ... I've already said too much. I'm not too fond of Guesser's best friend Malletto Kneecaps.
If will be nice to see if that story hold up in court. It's not like there will be any evidence left of the downloaded files on the girls computer.
Quite a pointless show-off of power, but maybe that's what the anti-piracy organisations is after. To scare people off from downloading copyrighted stuff.
are you joking? the whole article centered around the little girl and her winnie the pooh laptop, you really have to be blind not to see that the article wanted to be titled 'evil authorities target innocent little girl'
Well, the article was written (or at least posted) on a site called Torrent Freak, so they might well be anti-copyright, but that doesn't alter the point, which is that the aithorities actions in this case are just plain wrong.
the girl was breaking the law, the police were helped by a thrid party organisation.
It's the other way around, as ZnorXman says. The 'third party' was clearly calling the shots, the coppers were backing them up. This is illegal in England, as the police exist to enforce criminal laws, not civil matters, and we assume it's the same in Finland, otherwise the site wouldn't have printed it, and it does imply in the story that this is not usual.
its the same in parts of the UK if you are caught littering, the local council will issue you a fine, and the police will turn up if you say you'd rather not pay.
How is that the same? If you litter then the police don't turn up with a search warrant, they don't confiscate your property, and most of all, as you say yourself, IT'S THE COUNCIL WHO ISSUE THE FINE FOR LITTERING. Not a third party company with no connection to the law.
can you please point out the bit where the finnish police aren't allowed to do anything with piracy?
I've already answered that, but to repeat my points,
1. In England the coppers can't do anything about it, unless you make money from it (in which case it goes from a copyright offense to a criminal offense since you are making money you're not entitled to),
2. In England the police do not support third parties in their civil actions,
3. Yes, this is Finland we are talking about, not England, but the article clearly implies that the behavior of the police is at odds with what is expected of them, so it's fair to assume that the Finnish and English police both have points one and two in common.
Well, the article was written (or at least posted) on a site called Torrent Freak, so they might well be anti-copyright, but that doesn't alter the point, which is that the aithorities actions in this case are just plain wrong.
It's the other way around, as ZnorXman says. The 'third party' was clearly calling the shots, the coppers were backing them up. This is illegal in England, as the police exist to enforce criminal laws, not civil matters, and we assume it's the same in Finland, otherwise the site wouldn't have printed it, and it does imply in the story that this is not usual.
How is that the same? If you litter then the police don't turn up with a search warrant, they don't confiscate your property, and most of all, as you say yourself, IT'S THE COUNCIL WHO ISSUE THE FINE FOR LITTERING. Not a third party company with no connection to the law.
I've already answered that, but to repeat my points,
1. In England the coppers can't do anything about it, unless you make money from it (in which case it goes from a copyright offense to a criminal offense since you are making money you're not entitled to),
2. In England the police do not support third parties in their civil actions,
3. Yes, this is Finland we are talking about, not England, but the article clearly implies that the behavior of the police is at odds with what is expected of them, so it's fair to assume that the Finnish and English police both have points one and two in common.
ive highlighted the important parts.
next time you get a fine from someone other than the police, just dont pay it. in england the police will never get involved, simples
'The current proposal anticipates the “enforcement” directive to some extent. In particular, it contains the principle that a copyright infringement can be punishable under criminal law, and not only as a minor offence, even if no commercial purpose is involved. This might be seen as directed towards activities such as illegal distribution of software via the Internet as a hobby, or on an ideological basis. '
I made the right choice. I promised myself to never again buy a music CD years ago, not to support such mafia. And I keept my promise. I did not purchase a single CD since then, no matter how badly I wanted it.
I do not support that criminals.
Comments
No it's mine now, I stole it. ;)
curses! foiled again!
No. Because he forced ccowley to sign a non-disclosure agreement about the theft, i.e. Guesser could be lying. And ccowley couldn't confirm it either way.
when i see i crime, the police don't help me solve it when i call them.
No - but if a bailiff comes to your house with the police, the police are only there to keep the peace and not take sides.
You as a third party, observing the crime in one way or another, let the police know about a crime. They go do something about it according to the guidelines of their work.
Does the police monitor the internet, or a third party?
Who calls whom?
Guesser is a proper wrong 'un though.
the baliffs aren't there to sieze stolen goods.
if you had stolen something from a shop and had it in your house, the police would search your house, they wouldn't stand outside while a guy from hmv routed round your draws.
Look ... I've already said too much. I'm not too fond of Guesser's best friend Malletto Kneecaps.
Quite a pointless show-off of power, but maybe that's what the anti-piracy organisations is after. To scare people off from downloading copyrighted stuff.
Well, the article was written (or at least posted) on a site called Torrent Freak, so they might well be anti-copyright, but that doesn't alter the point, which is that the aithorities actions in this case are just plain wrong.
It's the other way around, as ZnorXman says. The 'third party' was clearly calling the shots, the coppers were backing them up. This is illegal in England, as the police exist to enforce criminal laws, not civil matters, and we assume it's the same in Finland, otherwise the site wouldn't have printed it, and it does imply in the story that this is not usual.
How is that the same? If you litter then the police don't turn up with a search warrant, they don't confiscate your property, and most of all, as you say yourself, IT'S THE COUNCIL WHO ISSUE THE FINE FOR LITTERING. Not a third party company with no connection to the law.
I've already answered that, but to repeat my points,
1. In England the coppers can't do anything about it, unless you make money from it (in which case it goes from a copyright offense to a criminal offense since you are making money you're not entitled to),
2. In England the police do not support third parties in their civil actions,
3. Yes, this is Finland we are talking about, not England, but the article clearly implies that the behavior of the police is at odds with what is expected of them, so it's fair to assume that the Finnish and English police both have points one and two in common.
Nah, you're just agreeing with me to look smart.
It's working too!
ive highlighted the important parts.
next time you get a fine from someone other than the police, just dont pay it. in england the police will never get involved, simples
http://e.finland.fi/netcomm/news/showarticle68c6.html?intNWSAID=23338
'The current proposal anticipates the “enforcement” directive to some extent. In particular, it contains the principle that a copyright infringement can be punishable under criminal law, and not only as a minor offence, even if no commercial purpose is involved. This might be seen as directed towards activities such as illegal distribution of software via the Internet as a hobby, or on an ideological basis. '
Do you mean H?
Massey Ferguson is a company not a person...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALZZx1xmAzg&t=29
I do not support that criminals.
Didn't know he was that talented...